Saturday, January 12, 2019

People on the Alt Right and Dissident Right and their GODFATHER Personality Counterparts. Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes, Jim Goad, Irony Bros, Matt Forney, Mike Enoch, Jean-Francois Gariepy, Stefan Molyneux, Kevin Michael Grace, Vox Day, Jared Taylor, Matt Heimbach, Ramzpaul, Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Anglin.

THE GODFATHER(directed by Francis Ford Coppola and based on Mario Puzo’s novel) is an instructive movie on the nature of power, i.e. that the dynamics of rivalry isn’t only about intelligence and ability but personality and temperament. After all, smart people can be lacking in will and audacity — risk-taking is an essential element of power. Or, they could be bold and confident to the point of recklessness — consider what happened to Hitler when he attacked the USSR. There are many fine things about THE GODFATHER, and one is about the Machiavellianism of Personality as guide to Power. As the story, in parts I and II, goes from end of World War II to the Cuban Revolution — the prequel section of part II deals with young Vito Corleone’s rise in the 1920s — , there wasn’t enough time to go into nitty-gritty details of strategy and negotiations. Instead, there was a broad narrative of how the Corleones, the top mafia family in the New York area, got embroiled in a war with the other families over the issue of Narcotics. THE GODFATHER PART 2 is somewhat more detailed, but we don’t learn much beyond how Hyman Roth attempts to lure Michael Corleone into Cuba(a sinking ship) & have him assassinated and how Michael Corleone makes counter-moves in anticipation of Roth’s agenda. If THE GODFATHER movies had been a TV series(like BOARDWALK EMPIRE), they might have delved into the minutiae of sharp minds maneuvering in the ruthless game of power. But even at 6 hrs and 15 minutes, there is only enough time to portray the Corleones and their inner circle in emotional and dramatic terms. What comes across most memorably are the PERSONALITIES of the characters. And from the movie — and from countless examples from real life — , we know that personality matters. While no one gets far without brains, how far one is willing to go depends on will, drive, and nerves, all of which are shaped by personality. We see this with dogs and cats. Even among dogs or cats of same intelligence, dog personality or ‘canality’ or cat personality or ‘felinality’ goes a long way in shaping dog or cat behavior. Some dogs are more aggressive and bold. Some are more timid and cautious. Some cats are fierce and aggressive. Some are mild and gentle.
In the end, Hitler was undone by his personality and temperament. And what drove Mao to the madness of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution owed much to his manic personality. If Hitler had died in the late 30s and if someone like Hermann Goering had taken over, there would have been far less likelihood of war, let alone World War II. Ultimately, it was Hitler’s egotism & megalomania, burning will, and hubris that drove him to the reckless decision of attacking Soviet Union, whereupon the stakes became win-all or lose-all. Ideology holds meaning and logic independent of personality, but in the end, it is personalities, not ideology, that govern the world. Therefore, ideology is molded according to whims of personalities with power. So, despite the ideology of National Socialism, its fate could have been very different if led by someone with a personality starkly different from that of Hitler. And consider the contrast between Mao and Deng in Chinese history. Both came to prominence as men committed to communist ideology, but whereas Mao was megalomaniacal and visionary, Deng was pragmatic and conciliatory.
Can people control their own personality? Yes, to an extent. On their paths to power, both Hitler and Mao could be compromising and yielding. They had to be as they were at a political disadvantage. But upon gaining absolute power, their sheer egotism made it nearly impossible for either to restrain one's prophetic vision of history and one's role in it. In contrast, Stalin, despite his own megalomania, was steered by a more anxious personality. Even as a gambler, he played patiently, slowly increasing his number of chips and waiting to scavenge off the reckless moves of others.

What can be learned about the figures on the Alt Right and Dissident Right based on their respective personalities? And which GODFATHER figures do they resemble most? Finally, a question worth asking but that can only be answered by the actual practices of the figures of the Alt Right and Dissident Right is, “Can people transcend the limits of their personality flaws and choose the wiser path?” Granted, one could argue that the problem is less a matter of personality-flaws than personality-balances. In other words, every personality trait has value in the right dosage and at the right time. It’s like salt is an essential ingredient in most cooking, so the problem isn’t salt per se but insufficient or excessive salt. The personality trait of boldness is necessary in power. In sports or any competition, one can’t get anywhere without making moves that carry the element of risk. Every move on the chessboard is both an advantage and disadvantage. Every throw by the quarterback can mean a touchdown or an interception. Excessive conservatism is cautious to a fault. Caution is generally good, but too much means fear of adventure, the necessary bridge to victory. The key element in the rise of the West over the East had to do with cultural personality(which could be genetic as well). Asians had comparable intelligence and basic elements of high civilization but lacked the Western spark and spirit. Now, one could argue that Western Adventurousness led to imperialism, genocides of non-whites, slave trade, and myriad other ‘crimes’, but it also unified the world and transformed all of humanity with new paradigms and possibilities. It was tragic but also triumphant.

Now, which GODFATHER characters do Alt Right and Dissident Right figures resemble most? Let’s begin with the MSM’s favorite ‘Face of the Alt Right’ Richard Spencer.

1. Richard Spencer = Carlo Rizzi

In some ways, one might say this comparison is most unfair. Unlike Carlo, Spencer does have a mind. He is capable of cool analysis like Tom Hagen. He wants to lead than follow. He has the vision thing, and his admirers might ague he has something of Michael Corleone. Also, Spencer’s unmistakable Waspiness may warrant comparisons with Senator Geary than with an Italian-American boy like Carlo. Then, why Carlo?
Because Spencer’s fatal flaws are very much like Carlo’s. Vain, narcissistic, petty, resentful, egotistical, spoiled, and bratty. It appears Carlo grew up adored and favored among family and friends because of his good looks. That’s why Connie, the daughter of the top Mafia don, married him. He thought he could get far with his cookie-cutter looks and charm, but when the Corleone’s didn’t place him in a position of importance, he grew bitter and took his frustrations out on Connie. Also, he’s incapable of personal loyalty, a trait shared by Spencer who's been unable to keep the trust of his closest allies and wife. Spencer has the 100x the mind of Carlo and the potential to be an importance person, but his shallow personality has led him to series of humiliations and setbacks.
All said and done, Spencer expected to coast on his looks and persona. He thought the Media were swooning all over him because he’s so provocative with ideas and the girls were putting out to him because he’s so handsome. The latter may be true, but the media were only using him.
Even so, he had a golden opportunity as the world, if only for a moment, descended on him as the Face of the Alt Right. But then, he blew it all away with reckless gestures and stupid alliances. When a man of intelligence has the personality of a fool, personality wins. For example, Spencer’s recent spat with Nicholas Fuentes makes no sense. Fuentes is an up-and-coming 20 yr old. Spencer is twice the age with double the experience. He should be playing the role of captain of an exciting movement, but he’s wasting his time squabbling with captains of smaller ships who just wanna do their own thing. Spencer pontificates about the vanguard but is too busy turning his head at those behind or beside him to fix his gaze toward the finish line.

2. Nick Fuentes = Moe Greene

Nick Fuentes’ fame or notoriety owes to his ridiculously young age. As a freshman in college, he was quickly spotted/scouted as a bundle of energy, a new face with quick wit and fiery passion. He is exactly the kind of person that Conservatism Inc and Neocons want on their side. The problem is people with real intelligence and passion don’t want to be told what to think and do. It’s no wonder that Establishment Politics usually ends up with those with brains but lacking in passion or those with passion but lacking in brains. Those with brains are likely to know what is really happening but generally lack the spine to stick up for their own beliefs and convictions. So, most brains just go along and become ‘paycheck conservatives’. Well, it’s a living. As for those with passion but no brains — the average SJW type — , they are happy to be barking dogs of the System.
It seems the ONLY people with real brains and real passion in the System are Jews because the status quo allows Jews to be passionately Jewish and work for Jewish interests. As white goyim aren't allowed passion for their own identity, they must mute white consciousness if they seek admittance into the System. White goyim in the West are essentially like Palestinians in West Bank. Their only chance of entry is by accommodating themselves as collaborators to the Jewish Supremacist System. Because Fuentes has a genuine independent streak and refused to play ball with Neocon Inc., he was expelled by Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, and he chose the path of Indie-Conservatism.
For awhile, he was associated with the Alt Right, but again, his independent personality recoiled from what he found to be morally ugly(the flirtation with Neo-Nazi elements) or strategically foolish(the optics debate on political aesthetics). Fast mind and fiery heart have served Fuentes well in terms of integrity. He missed a golden opportunity in career in politics by daring to mention the JQ during his stint at Daily Wire, but this is different from Spencer’s dropping the ball. Fuentes lost out because of personal honesty, whereas Spencer went from failure to failure by making awful alliances with morons and clowns like Andrew Anglin, Matt Heimbach, Chris Cantwell, and etc. As Ramzpaul said, the Alt Right’s advantage was in being an alternative to both Neocon GOP and old Neo-Nazi garbage.

So far, the positive qualities of Fuentes have been mentioned. What are his negative sides, and why is he like Moe Greene? Fuentes is often immature and bratty, on occasion even obnoxious. He is hot-tempered and goes off the rails when he feels slighted, often disproportionately. His mudslinging with James Allsup made both look stupid, but Fuentes came off worse because his nastiness was so vicious, unrelenting, and unhinged. Nick the Knife relishes a fight, and he just doesn’t know when to stop. It’s not enough to slice or stick the guy. Fuentes has to push the blade all the way in, twist it, and then rub salt on the wound. There is almost a sadistic glee in his personal attacks on people that take on aspects of torture porn.
Also, because of excessive pride, Fuentes is too easily dismissive of views and ideas that doesn’t jibe with his worldview and morality, and this is especially true when it comes to Catholic vs Pagan debate. His self-righteous sadistic side just can’t resist putting on the robe of the grand inquisitor and insulting neo-pagans and stretching them on the rack.
Like Moe Greene, he can’t check himself when he gets into a fight. It quickly becomes personal and toxic, and it’s kill-or-be-killed. Also, because Fuentes is too quick to judge, he has a tendency to willfully misread others' statements and intentions. When it came to Spencer vs Fuentes I, Spencer had the moral advantage because Fuentes willfully misinterpreted what Spencer meant by pedophiles and child porn. But in Fuentes vs Spencer II, Spencer is clearly in the wrong because he dug up the hatchet and flailed away at Fuentes(and just about everyone else in what seemed like a demented rant to reclaim the Alt Right as a Spencentric Movement). Perhaps, Fuentes is drawn to Catholicism because he intuitively surmises that his hot ego, if unregulated by faith in God, can easily fly off the handle like that of fellow Latin Mussolini. It’s like a willful dog needs an especially powerful leash to restrain it from running wild and crazy. But for Fuentes, his Catholic leash has become more than a check on his emotions. It has become a check on his intellect and imagination, even to the point of dismissing evolution and entertaining the retarded notion of geocentrism. It has also become an easy whip of moral indignation. In this, Fuentes has something in common with the young Pat Buchanan who, as a young conservative, was an odd-man-out in Columbia Journalism school filled with Liberals(as recounted in his delightful autobiography RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING). Buchanan always had brains and passion, but his overt Catholicism limited his imagination and scope as a thinker, culture critic, and politician. It’s interesting that Fuentes is most like Buchanan but most admires Donald Trump who, being free of religious dogma, has been able to forge a new style of politics. In the end, the problem isn’t religiosity per se. It is dogmatism and excessive piety as crutch of righteousness. Some of Fuentes’ religious rambling is as counter-factual and unthinking as the PC derangement of the SJW-NPC types.

3. Jim Goad = Sonny Corleone

To be fair to Jim Goad, he insists he’s not part of the Alt Right or even Dissident Right. Goad sees himself as a maverick thinker, maybe in the tradition of Gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson. His columns read like Mike Royko writing for Hustler. Like Fred Reed, he is as likely to piss off the Right as the Left. But given that the current dogma is PC, a tool of proggy globalism, Goad’s worldview is currently more aligned with the Right. Same is true of Youtube personality Styxhexenhammer666 who, under normal circumstances, would not be considered as part of the Right. But because of PC-domination in industry and institutions, even a larping ‘satanist’ like Styx often finds himself making common cause with the Right against the Zio-Globo-Homo-‘left’ that spearheads efforts to shut down Free Speech and Free Spend. If one knows Jim Goad only by his columns, one will have noticed the smarts(of books and streets), toughness, and wit. Goad is often a gifted writer with turns of phrases that are as humorous as ham-fisted. If Curly(of the Three Stooges) were a polemicist than a clown, he might have written like Jim Goad. Funny, inspired, crazy, and exaperating. Goad is also an equal opportunity offender, which is what makes him most like Mike Royko, albeit in a bare-knuckle and breaking-the-balls way.
Also, just because he hates your enemies doesn’t mean you likes you any better. Goad attacks both SJW’s and religious types for delusional thinking and holier-than-thou piety. He sees all kinds of religiosity and dogma as a crutch for weak minds and infantile souls. His view of life is essentially the school of Mean Streets existentialism. Everyone must accept his or her own journey in life, take the blows, give as well as they get, lick their wounds, and crawl back home to bed. Goad says his views changed a lot over the years, and some of his pieces are very confessional. Goad doesn’t confess to priests but to the world. One might find parallels between Goad(as his own god) and the Harvey Keitel character in BAD LIEUTENANT, albeit with a much bigger pud as Goad often likes to point out. There is a reason why Goad has a cult-following. In a world with so much born-again hokum on the ‘right’ and save-the-world hysteria on the ‘left’, some people find Goad’s hard-boiled ‘Mike Hammer’ style of writing refreshing and even liberating. You can’t get any more honest than writing a confessional piece about how you got your penis sucked by a black teenager in your youth.

But there is a disturbing aspect to Jim Goad’s character, and one wonders if Goad’s toughness is genuine or an exaggerated defensive mechanism concealing a fragile soul. People who always act tough are often trying to hide something wounded and vulnerable that they can’t or don’t want to deal with. Goad has spoken of his abusive father, but his own behavior and persona have often been abusive to the point of pathology. It’s fair game for Jim Goad to make fun of other people’s looks when such is relevant. If some fat green-haired feminist passes herself as hot stuff, mocking her looks is justified because they’re part of her shtick. Or one can’t fault Goad for making Matt Forney’s obesity because Forney has positioned himself as sexual guru or hot stuff with women. But when Roger Ebert was lying in bed in a pitiable state dying of cancer, it took a truly demented mentality to mock Ebert's appearance. It’s especially sickening when one considers Jim Goad’s first wife died of cancer, and he himself had brain tumor removed. It would have been fair game to attack Ebert’s politics or opinions, but his physical state had NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, and Goad’s nastiness just seemed vicious and cruel. But Goad is so often hotheaded, angry, thuggish, and blowing steam from every orifice that he seems unaware of how monstrous he can be. And it is in this respect that Goad is like Sonny Corleone whose rage often gets the best of him. Granted, Goad is smarter than Sonny, but this makes Goad’s dementia even more infuriating as one would think a man who has been through so much should know better. Rage may feel good and even win over fans who like a good fight, but it can just as easily lead men astray... which is what happened with Goad in his encounter with the Irony Bros.

4. Irony Bros = Assassins

Irony Bros seem to have Alt Right or Dissident Right sympathies, but their main shtick is to mock anyone in the movement who takes himself too seriously. Beardson is reportedly an atheist whereas Shawn is a Christian, but there is hardly any difference in their irreverent approach to their targets, which could be just about anyone. Beardson gained notoriety by baiting Matt Forney, but it seems they've become ‘friends’ since. So, everything the Irony Bros does has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are driven by trollogy, not ideology, even if they may have ideological leanings in the rightward direction, not least because the enemy of free speech and freedom in general now comes from the globo-homo ‘left’.

One could argue that Irony Bros are bad for the movement. Spencer surmises that they might be working for the Fed(LOL). Some might say they are toxic in their nihilism and nastiness. All very true, but one can’t expect too much from trolls. Irony Bros are essentially jesters and pranksters, like the Yippies in the 1960s. For that very reason, they can be an auto-subversive element on the Right. But then, a movement led by people who can’t sometimes laugh at themselves has become a bit stiff and stodgy. Furthermore, while Irony Bros sometimes do ‘punch to the right’, they can be merciless in trolling the ‘left’. The trick is not to fall into the trap of taking anything by them too seriously, which is precisely what Jim Goad did in the now infamous Luke Ford Saturday Night Massacre Livestream. Ironically, even though Matt Forney and Jim Goad want to tear off each other’s balls, they have one thing in common in having been trolled by Beardson Beardly. Irony Bros are essentially like hired-killers in THE GODFATHER. They just enjoy the ritual bloodbath of massacring sacred cows and big egos. So, just like the hired goons in THE GODFATHER will mow down anyone for the right price, Irony Bros will spray bullets onto any target for good times. Naturally, one cannot have a honest or ‘good faith’ argument with such personalities, but Goad fell for the trap, exposing himself to ridicule and death by thousand cuts. Irony Bros mow down Jim Goad:

5. Matt Forney = Philip Tattaglia

Some people say Matt Forney is a talented writer, but I never bothered to read his books or articles. I did skim over his attack on Ann Sterzinger, and it just made everyone look foolish. The general impression from his dealings with other people suggests an insecurity that hides behind exaggerated manhood, conviction, or animus. More than anything, he seems eager to be accepted by his 'superiors'. So, for a while, he was the sidekick of Roosh. Never mind he made a rather ridiculous figure for Manosphere and advice on picking up women. Then, when Richard Spencer’s wing of the Alt Right foolishly attacked Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Forney piled on, especially by calling out on Johnson’s reputed homosexuality, as if playing lapdog to Spencer & Co. might score some points with the Big Boys. Of course, Spencer felt nothing but scorn for such an eager-beaver. Now, this isn’t to say that Forney’s revulsion for Johnson wasn’t genuine, but his frothing-at-the-mouth during the ugly incident came across as  'desperate to be with the in-crowd'. It’s like what an unpopular fat kid does to up his chances of admittance into a fraternity. At the very least, someone like Goad has the spine to go his own way and stand on his own two feet. In contrast, Forney is a stray dog in search of a master who may put a collar around it for keeps. And it is this side of Forney that makes him like Philip Tattaglia. Tattaglia is a big time gangster but a pimp. He lacks big ideas and has to latch onto Barzini and Sollozzo. As Vito Corleone said of Tattaglia, he couldn’t have outfought Santino(Sonny) on his own. Indeed, Goad vs Forney was like a wolf mauling a bulldog, that was until Forney was saved by Aurini the dane or Irony Bros weasels.
That said, it seems Forney in recent yrs has grown more independent in will and ego. His Terror House Magazine may be a start of something important if it attracts writers of talent and insight. Maybe Forney finally learned the lesson of his former hero Jim Goad: If you're naturally a strange and eccentric kid, you have to forge your own path and not give a damn what others think.

6. Mike Enoch = Sollozo the ‘Turk’

Mike Enoch of The Daily Shoah has been one of the most abrasive and hard-hitting members of the Alt Right. His approach is no-holds-barred and cuts to the bone. He strikes fast and hard, and members of the MSM that tried to hoodwink him got owned. Also, because he’s not a dreamy-eyed visionary like Spencer, he focuses on real power and real problems. His head isn’t up in the clouds with fantasies of conquering stars and being Darth Vader of the galaxies. He stares closely at those with real power in the West, and of course, it’s the Jews. When it comes to dissecting real power and cutting open the cancerous tumor, Enoch is like a surgeon with a butcher’s knife. He is utterly brutal but has a keen surgical eye in spotting the heart-of-the-matter amidst the bloodletting. Because of Enoch’s slaughterhouse Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre approach to political analysis, he isn’t for everyone, which is precisely why his show is called The Daily Shoah.
And it is for this brutal honesty that Enoch is like Sollozzo the Turk. Whatever one may say of Sollozzo, he is the most honest gangster in NY. The Corleones and other families put on airs of respectability and take care to appear semi-legitimate. Even the Five Families that are drawn to the narcotics trade want it keep it ‘controlled’. Sollozzo, in contrast, has fewer inhibitions about what gangsterism is really about. Also, he enjoys doing his own killings. He feels no shame in being a hoodlum. He wears corruption on his sleeve. In a similar vein, Enoch is a brutally honest Alt Right thug. Nick Fuentes might say Enoch has troublesome optics. Undoubtedly, Mike Enoch has been one of the most uninhibited of Alt Right figures. He doesn’t shroud his racial politics with talk of Faustian-Nietzschean something-or-other or Christian sanctimony. As far as he’s concerned, Jews run just about everything, and Jews shit on whites. So, whites must shit back on Jews. Jews are a bunch of crooks and gangsters, and they must be exposed as such, and whites must fight like gangsters to expose and shame the Jews. Enoch’s bear-wrestling style of Alt Right politics certainly has its advantages. It is more honest than most.

But he shares the ugly aspects of Sollozzo as well. Sollozzo is so hellbent on getting what he wants that he oversteps the bounds of gangsterism. Being an honest crook is one thing, but there is a thing called honor even among thieves. Sollozzo is such a total gangster that he will break every rule in the book to get things his way. No system and no movement can operate on sheer brutality alone. Sollozzo is so dogged and driven that after his first hit on Vito Corleone, he goes for a second attempt at the hospital. And given his nature, no one trusts him. Either you side with him or you kill him(because he will kill you otherwise). In the end, it didn’t turn out so good for Sollozzo. Michael read him correctly and figured that either Sollozzo is killed or he will keep coming after the Corleones one way or another. In a similar manner, Enoch is nothing if not dogged in his pursuit of the enemy, namely the Jews. But because he’s so aggressive and brutal in his animus, he’s often been mistaken for madman lunatic.
In his role with TDS(The Daily Shoah), it’s most likely that he was ‘larping’ or pulling pranks, but what works in roughhouse satire doesn’t translate well in the streets. Howard Stern is amusing as a shock-jock radio personality, but his shtick would be way out of line in politics. If Enoch had limited himself to being a shock-jock of the Alt Right, his boorish crudity could have been appreciated for what it is. But when he pulled ‘Nazi’ shit in public events meant to convey a larger political message, he was just being ugly and demented. He failed to remind himself that satire and politics work differently. Now, is it possible that Mike Enoch is a genuine Neo-Nazi? I don’t believe it as he seems too smart and knowledgeable. Granted, a smart person could be psycho, in which case he might really be for Neo-Nazi nuttery. But Enoch doesn’t seem insane. So, my take is that he was ‘larping’ with Nazi salutes and pulling other such stunts in public events to show what a ‘badass’ he is, a real Alt Right gangster who fights hard and takes no prisoners. But just like Sollozzo with his moves, Enoch overestimated the momentum of the Alt Right and his role in it. In the end, he just made it more difficult for more sober and saner members of the Alt Right to reach out to Middle America.

7. Jean-Francois Gariepy = Peter Clemenza

It’s generally understood that J.F. Gariepy’s The Public Space is the best Youtube forum on Alt Right and Dissident Right matters. The Gariepy approach is to be edgy and controversial without giving undue offense by violating Youtube’s Terms of Service on ‘hate speech’. This isn’t easy because ‘hate speech’ is an Orwellian term invoked by the Power to shut down whatever speech it doesn’t like. Consider how Jared Taylor has been banned from Twitter and some of his American Renaissance videos have effectively been censored on Youtube: It’s been placed in ‘limited state’, which is more Orwellian BS.
How has Gariepy been able to succeed where many others have failed. He comes across as jovial & friendly and will engage anyone from right to the left with a professionalism that is generally lacking in the Amateur Hour style of Youtube commentary. In this, he is sort of like Clemenza, the seemingly easygoing gangster who is liked by the members of the Corleone family. But deep down inside, Clemenza is a killer just like the rest of them, and when push comes to shove, he delivers. And there’s no mistaking that Gariepy, for all his civility and warmth, has hardcore convictions when it comes to identity and survival of the West. He is a warrior at the core with a gun or knife inside his sleeve. But just like Clemenza, he cannot be the leader of the movement, the spearhead. He functions as a reliable operator who keeps ideas and spirits flowing through the Alt-Right-sphere.

8. Stefan Molyneux = Tom Hagen

Like Jim Goad, Stefan Molyneux has insisted he is not part of the Alt Right or even the Dissident Right. Molyneux sees himself as a libertarian who happens to be conscious of racial diversity or HBS(human-biodiversity). The difference is that if the Alt Right tends to put Race at the center of ideology, Molyneux favors individualism and freedom above all. To preserve the culture of liberty and trust in the modern world, Molyneux believes it would be disastrous to allow massive inflows of lower-IQ people from Africa, Muslim World, and Latin America. So, if Alt Right defends race for race’s sake, Molyneux defends racial preservation of the West as the necessary condition for maintaining the hallmarks of modern Western Civilization: Rule of Law, Free Markets, Property Rights, Individual Liberty, and etc. But no matter how much Molyneux protests against being pigeonholed as a ‘rightist’ or race-ist, the fact is a person is as much defined by his enemies, haters, and detractors as by himself and his admirers. Molyneux has a lot of enemies and haters, and most of them are on the Proggy side. As far they're concerned, no amount of self-justification on Molyneux's part can absolve his thought-crimes of 'white supremacism'.
And yet, because Molyneux prefers ideas and values more than identity rooted in race or tribe, he tries to maintain his cool and explain his positions as evaluations based on evidence and reason than on blood-and-guts passion. His approach is ‘business’ than ‘personal’, and this makes him rather like Tom Hagen. Though an emotional person like any of us, Molyneux’s persona on Youtube is as a popular philosopher who logically puts forth arguments stamped with rationalist pedigree. Molyneux is like a lawyer of philosophy, and it is why many on the ‘left’ are infuriated because he won't just come out of the 'racist' closet so that they could all pile on him as a 'nazi'. But, he has exasperated some on the Alt Right as well because they see Molyneux as espousing Alt Right ideas without giving due credit and without taking sides where it really counts. They see him as essentially a Man of the Right who refuses to get ‘personal’ in the culture war because of his conceit of neutrality grounded in empathy with all things. He’s not a wartime consiglieri.

9. Kevin Michael Grace = Jack Woltz

Jack Woltz is a Jewish Hollywood mogul and pervert whereas Kevin Michael Grace is a Catholic Reactionary, so they don’t have much in common in terms of culture or values. But both are devilishly opinionated and dig in their heels on things that really matter to them. Even though KMG isn’t part of the Alt Right, he is more than your ordinary Catholic Reactionary. He has bohemian taste in the arts & culture, is conversant on matters of HBD(human bio-diversity), and addresses the JQ(in ways that most Catholics might feel uncomfortable), though, to be sure, he is a also a staunch supporter of Zionism(at least within Israeli borders). KMG used to have a show with Kevin Steel, but the chemistry wasn’t there as Steel was too much like the bland Andy Richter in the early Conan O’Brien show.

KMG’s chemistry with Luke Ford is much better as Ford gives ample space to KMG’s opinionizing while offering his own perspectives, often in counter to KMG’s own. It works like oil and vinegar. To the best of my knowledge, KMG has had almost no direct relation with members of the Alt Right, the exceptions being a few Alt Right figures who joined Luke Ford’s Youtube Livestream. KMG agrees with Greg Johnson and Luke Ford that Richard Spencer was most responsible for running the Alt Right wagon into the ditch. KMG’s strength is curiosity + experience + knowledge + opinion. Some people know a lot but lack passion. Some people are full of passion but lack depth and knowledge. KMG makes for interesting personality because he knows a lot and has heart-in-the-game. Sometimes, his opinionated views may come across as intolerant, bilious, & contemptuous, and his inability to suppress his real feelings has resulted in nasty(and hilarious) spats with Jim Goad the hardline atheist and David Ebert the moral relativist.

10. Voxday = Hyman Roth

Hyman Roth is nothing if not intelligent, and Vox Day claims to be high-IQ himself. (He does lack Roth’s modesty even if false.) Also, like Hyman Roth, Vox Day goes for the Big Picture. With background in science-fiction, his thought-processes are more analytical and systematic than that of Richard Spencer the Nihilo-Romanticist. Spencer’s idea of Sci-Fi is STAR WARS, and he gets all excited like Captain Kirk on STAR TREK. Vox Day barely reveals his emotions even when upset with certain individuals or ideas. He has an air of Zen about him, sometimes talking like a robot or Dr. Spock. Instead of expressing rage, he drolly tears apart his opponents like a child removing wings and legs of an insect. In the exasperating debate with Andrew Anglin, he kept his cool while Anglin's emotions were all over the map. Vox calmly kept his head above water while Anglin thrashed wildly to keep himself from drowning. It was like the swimming match in BREAKING AWAY between the college jock and townie played by Dennis Quaid. One almost got the impression that Vox was taking pity on the Daily Stormer hick and lending him a hand underwater to keep him afloat.
Hyman Roth also almost never shows his emotions, though his rage flared briefly when provoked by Michael Corleone. Despite his been-there-done-that demeanor, Roth is a ferocious character who, upon developing a grudge, just can’t let it go until he gets his vengeance. He is calm waves above but violent undercurrents below. Michael Corleone is his Moby Dick to harpoon and destroy. Despite his diplomacy with Michael Corleone, he can't let go of the fact that Moe Greene, almost like a son to him(and fellow Tribesman), was killed by the Corleones. So, Roth is sworn to the destruction of Michael Corleone no matter the time and cost.

This obsessive side of Roth can be seen in Vox Day, especially in his near-maniacal agenda to destroy Jordan Peterson. Most people are take-it-or-leave-it on the subject of Peterson, but Vox Day reacted to Peterson as though the Canadian superstar violated some fundamental principle of the universe. Thus, Peterson isn’t just a bad guy or charlatan but akin to an evil scientist or grand sorcerer of sci-fi or fantasy novels who must be utterly defeated to restore balance to the world. Vox Day’s war on Peterson isn’t merely over ideas or issues of character. Peterson obviously triggered Vox Day in a way that most people can’t fathom. Vox Day took it 'personally'(even though the two men never met) because Vox has his own grand theory of the world. As Peterson’s worldview is so at odds with Vox's own, it’s like a gangster turf war among Big Think philosophers.
Now, why would Vox Day be so upset with Peterson in particular when, surely, there are so many other thinkers Vox Day disagrees with? It’s because Jordan Peterson has been promoted by the media as a 'man of the right' who stands up to Political Correctness. Being Anti-PC is the proud battle flag of the Alt Right; therefore, as Vox Day sees it, only genuine Alt Rightists and Dissident Rightists should have the right to carry the banner. But there is Jordan Peterson propped up by the powers-that-be as a courageous member of the 'Intellectual Dark Web' when, from Vox Day’s perspective, the man is nothing but just another Establishmentarian shill. Most people can ignore or get over the cult of Jordan Peterson and move onto something else, but Vox Day can’t let it go. He feels he must carry on with the anti-Peterson vendetta until Peterson’s reputation is utterly exposed and destroyed(at least in Alt Right circles in which Vox Day has not insignificant influence).

11. Jared Taylor = Senator Patrick Geary

This is an unfair comparison in more ways than one. Unlike Geary, who is a rank hypocrite and sleazebag, Jared Taylor has been a man of dignity and principle. Unlike Richard Spencer who acts debonair(modeled on 007?) in interviews but does airhead things in most other occasions, Taylor has been genuinely respectable at all times, and even many of his enemies admit that he is a gentleman in the best sense of the word. Then, why is he like Geary? Oddly enough, it is the primacy of respectability itself in the lives of both men. Even though Geary's respectability is bogus whereas Taylor's is genuine, both men are concerned above all with maintaining the image of respectability. Geary is a sexual pervert, which makes him an easy target for blackmail. But his career relies on respectability, and so, he will do ANYTHING to put forth a clean image of himself. Jared Taylor espouses views that are most un-respectable in today's elite circles of media and academia, but he is ever mindful to come across as respectable. But, no matter how civil and refined he acts, the powers-that-be will paint him as a 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazi'. Does this mean that Taylor should drop his manners and act like Andrew Anglin since ADL and SPLC will always put them in the same hole? Of course not. If you're not a white supremacist or Neo-Nazi, there is no reason to act like one just because the media paint a Hitler mustache on you no matter what.
Still, Taylor's commitment to respectability has made him delusional in hoping that American Renaissance(his outfit) will ever make inroads into higher respectable circles because of the good manners of the attendees at its conferences. Style is important, but the truth is ADL and SPLC(and the vast Jewish Network) will always characterize the substance of Jared Taylor's ideas as 'white supremacist'.
And it doesn't matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist Taylor insists he is. Given that Holocaustianity and Jew-Worship are the biggest 'religions' in the West, Taylor thinks he can score points by praising Jews, but in fact, most Jews hate him because his mission of 'white advocacy' implies emancipation of white consciousness from serving the Other. To Jews, they themselves are the main constituents of this Other. Only with continuous injection of 'white guilt' drug into the Western bloodstream can Jews paralyze white pride and agency, thereby making whites seek moral restitution by serving the 'holy' Other.
On a darker note, we see in both Geary and Taylor a rather servile attitude to the Ultimate Power. Geary, despite his cocky Waspiness, all-too-easily becomes a toady of the Corleones upon realizing the kind of power they wield. He used to look down on Eye-talians as greasy gangsters, but once fallen into their trap he grovels at their feet like an indentured servant. Likewise, Taylor is so impressed with Jewish Power that he clings to the hope that all-powerful Jews may one day appoint him as their most loyal Wasp servant. In some ways, Taylor is more pathetic than Geary on this point because whereas Geary is handsomely rewarded for sucking up to the Corleones, Taylor has gotten NOTHING from carrying water for the Jews and defending Israel. (Taylor supports Zionist treatment of Palestinians, but American Jews treat Taylor like Israelis treat Palestinians. What bittersweet irony.) Indeed, ADL that monitors Twitter got Tayor banned, and all the Jew-run media gleefully piled on the de-platformed Taylor and gloated like laughing hyenas. It's all well and good to be a gentleman, but this is war, and one must be willing to get down-and-dirty against the powers-that-be. In battle, even officers must be ready to get mud and blood on their uniforms. Taylor is too finely tailored for the coming battle, which is really a Race War waged by Jews against whites.

12. Matt Heimbach = Luca Brasi

Unlike Luca Brasi who seems rather dimwitted and tongue-tied in THE GODFATHER, Matt Heimbach is no dummy and gifted as a speaker. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from acting like a moron all too often. As the 'cowboy' says in MULHOLLAND DR., one's attitude goes a long way to decide how one's life will be, but then, one's attitude is largely shaped by one's personality. Heimbach is a monster-man like Brasi. Actually, if he lost some weight, he might look like a normal, even rather pleasant-looking, guy. But as fatso and bubblebutt, he looks grotesque, more Malt-Right than Alt-Right. The fact that he seems unable to shed a few pounds suggests a pitiable lack of self-control. He's like Cookie Monster. Also, despite his large body, he has a cherubic face, which he toughens with a beard, which only makes him look even more ridiculous in combo with nerdy glasses. So, there is Monster-Matt, someone who looks like a professional wrestler as couchpotato as baby-faced Paul Bunyan with specs of a computer nerd.
But what makes him especially like Brasi is the compulsion to associate himself with betters and the one-dimensionality of what he has to offer. Like Brasi the killer, Heimbach and his crew were only useful as street-fighters, the Fist of the Alt Right. Also, Heimbach was so eager to associate himself with someone like Spencer who is better-looking, better-educated, and better-mannered(at least in public). Brasi in THE GODFATHER is a self-loathing creature whose fanatical loyalty to Vito Corleone is founded on gratitude for having been offered friendship by a superior man. Even though Heimbach proudly defined himself as a Man of the White Working Class, the fact was the kind of people he dealt with tended to be crude and vulgar. Also, Heimbach got too close with Neo-Nazi stuff to ever gain respectability(or credibility among anti-Nazi Alt Right types). So, Heimbach's sole ticket to 'better optics' was to align himself with 'high-class' Spencer and serve as his Luca Brasi. But if Vito Corleone used Brasi in covert operations, Heimbach's overt actions for Spencer only served to tarnish the image of the 'superior' man.
At any rate, Heimbach now sleeps with the fishes because he can't recover from his Jerry-Springer-ish romp with his father-in-law Matt Parrot's wife. For a man who's berated the Jews for subverting Western Morality, it wasn't exactly the best move. Ironically, what Heimbach now has in common with Richard 'superior man' Spencer is Wife Problems. For all their public declarations for the White Family, they totally in affairs of personal and/or pubic life.

13. Ramzpaul = Johnny Fontane

As with most pairings on this blogpost, there is unfairness in comparing Ramzpaul with Fontane. Fontane is a corrupt and craven character who begs Don Corleone for favors to land a movie role. I can't imagine Ramzpaul stooping so low to get anything his way. He is classicly Waspy in sense of right-and-wrong, unlike the more clannish-minded folks of other tribes(non-whites and ethnic-whites, especially Jews and Italians). He's also shown considerable courage in sticking to his convictions despite media hostility. If he's gained in racial consciousness in recent yrs, it was with a certain reluctance in reaction to the changing political climate where non-whites are urged by Jews(especially) to blame everything on Whitey or White Privilege. Though individualist-libertarian by nature, he believes that whites have no choice but to be racially conscious because (1) they are headed toward minority status even in nations of their making and (2) PC dogma vilifies whites for all problems.
Now, why is he like Fontane? He is naturally entertaining and might have made it in comedy if he'd chosen another career path. He certainly enjoys the limelight and knows how to amuse his audience unlike most on the Alt Right who, as personalities, range from earnest to hotheaded. Another way he is like Fontane is a certain defeatism. His jokey personality, being most at home with cheerful lightheartedness, often succumbs to gloom-and-doom when pondering future prospects of the White Race. After all, no amount of joking can save a condemned man from the hangman. He admits he came close to quitting his Youtube stream several times and had to be slapped back into form by Tina the Finnish Godmother.
Ramzpaul doesn't have the vision and audacity of Spencer, and he has admitted he isn't the leader type. He's more a commentator and satirist. But overall, his view of the Alt Right has been saner than that of Spencer & Co. who decided to wage all sorts of internecine wars(mainly against Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, which served NO purpose) and charge into radical acceleration mode in what was still a rickety and incomplete vehicle over bumpy roads. On a road strewn with so many obstacles and traps, Ramzpaul called for cautious and sober driving. Spencer decided to down the bottle and put the metal to the pedal... with rather predictable results.

14. Kevin MacDonald = Don Tommasino

Like Don Tommasino, Kevin MacDonald has been there from the beginning. A former radical socialist in the 1960s, he soon came to realize that Jewish Idealism is often wedded to a deeper Jewish Tribalism. If Wasps took the New Idealism at face value, Jews used it to maneuver themselves into power as the New Elites to not-so-covertly push their tribal supremacism uber alles. After much thought, MacDonald theorized that recent Jewish behavior is nothing new and, if anything, fits into a wider and deeper pattern of history, culture, and possibly genetics.
Because of his experience, he is weary and wounded warrior and has few illusions as to what the Power is really capable of. In this, he is different from the young crop of Alt Right crusaders who, in their gushy enthusiasm and naivete, hurled themselves into the fire like Siegfried... only to get scorched. Due to his age, MacDonald is in no position to lead the movement, and besides, he's more a scholar type than activist type. But like Don Tommasino, he has earned respect in the Alt Right community for key contributions and for having his paid his dues in the most suppressed movement in America.

15. Andrew Anglin = Fredo Corleone

Andrew Anglin isn't really part of Alt Right or any Right. He's essentially been a class-clown and troll all his life. Some say Daily Stormer is a Fed Operation run by Jewish Weez to make the Right look bad. While I don't subscribe to the notion of Anglin as agent, no good can come from taking him seriously. If Daily Stormer has any use, it's in the boundaries of free speech and mocking sacred cows of PC. Granted, its way of 'satire' is often so crude and ugly that it ends up soiling the Right as well muddying the Left.
That said, if the Alt Right had left Anglin to do his own thing, it would have been better for both sides. But, the Unite the Right Rally at Charlottesville invited the Anglin-Stormer crowd. Spencer had long public policy discussions with Anglin, as if Anglin could be taken seriously as an expert on anything. And Red Ice interviewed him as a person of importance. All bad moves. Class clowns are best handled like Adam Sandler. Laugh when they do funny stuff but do NOT invite to weddings and funerals.
Now, unlike Fredo, Anglin isn't exactly low-IQ. But when it comes to immaturity, he(and Weez) beats Fredo by a mile. There is something slightly endearing about Anglin and Weez when seen as bad-goy clowns and stooges but only revulsion when taken seriously. There's a reason why Michael Corleone limited Fredo to frivolous Mickey Mouse tasks. Fredo could not be trusted with serious responsibilities. You don't take Curly of the Three Stooges and put him in a War Movie or Serious Drama.


  1. Who in the hell would spend the time required to write this nonsensical pile of gibberish?

  2. Time to use the ban-hammer on Chuck,

  3. interesting essay, Andrea...your take on most of the Alt-Lite/Alt-Right luminaries is substantially accurate. I'm currently attempting to enlighten Vox on a few of his blind spots - Trump-worship, Israhell, monkeyball, etc. - but he just will not budge. And, as you say, his vendetta against the shabbatz goy Peterson is...deeply personal.

  4. Spot on analysis. Vox linked to your article, and he is desperately trying to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.

  5. Was wondering why the author didn't like Anglin then realized they were an alleged woman. LOL!

  6. "White goyim in the West are essentially like Palestinians in West Bank. Their only chance of entry is by accommodating themselves as collaborators to the Jewish Supremacist System"

    Outstanding analogy!